Feminism Thread

[Karbuncle]

You would have no problem insisting that a someone who wrote about how great the nazis were shouldn't be fired for losing his job

Actually, I clearly said:

if it was satirical? No.

If it was serious? No.

Either way, I'd laugh it off, Either because the man is clearly a nutcake or because its satirical

But I can see that was directed at some other posters who did of course have differing opinions than mine. I'll let Lyall post above me be the answer to the rest of it.

And by that I mean pageclaim edit:

No one is arguing that no one should ever be fired for saying dumb things, that's just what you're taking away from this. What we're appearing to say is that satire is intentionally dumb, and being fired for it is even dumber.



Criticism should never just be "I DON'T LIKE THAT, TAKE IT DOWN AND MAKE HIM GO AWAY." That's not how adults hold a dialogue. There's no counter-argument, there's no discussion on a sensitive topic. There's just someone's opinion, someone whining that opinion is wrong, and the blanket ban on having that opinion. That's what children do.

If this staffer on the paper was so sure that Mahmood's opinion was indefensible, where is the counter article? Where's the follow-up? Oh, it's written on his fucking door. "everyone hates you you fuck" indeed.

FYI, his article is here: http://www.michiganreview.com/do-the-left-thing/

It's not a take-down of feminism. It's a take down of the overly-sensitive and sorts of people who find combat and injustice in every facet of life. I can see why some people would fail to make that distinction, though.

-Susan Kruth, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education-

Of course, independent student newspapers like theDaily are not bound by the First Amendment, but students who value unfettered debate and free expression do not punish peers for saying or writing things with which they disagree. Instead of forcing Mahmood to choose between writing satire and reporting for the Daily, any editor who was offended by his column should have offered his or her own counterpoint to Mahmood.

Instead, the Daily’s actions will serve to make students reluctant to write further satire, confining their writing either to the non-controversial or, perhaps, to less entertaining forms.

[hey]

This might be hard to believe, Hey, but sometimes trigger warnings and the feminists who blast them are silly. They are not untouchable concepts, and sometimes the people claiming to be feminists using trigger warnings are dumb.

To put it in a different perspective: No one is above being posted in Gimp/Confused/WTF. Stop defending the gimps.

Yes, of course, i've said as much plenty of times before. The people who harassed him were wrong, and should not have done that. I think we can all agree on that point though, so there's no need to discuss it. If it really means so much to you, i can give periodic reminders that i believe a lot of feminists are dumb and terrible people. Not every feminist is smart, not every feminist is a good person, not every feminist desires equality. No one actually thinks otherwise.

I'm glad you admitted he didn't deserve to be harassed, though. When you say things like "Bigots and jerks shouldn't write for newspapers" it makes you sound incredibly insensitive and uncaring to the fact that he was hounded after the fact by a gang of women looking to teach him a lesson.

He obviously did not deserve that, but i do think he deserved to be fired. If he didn't want to be, he could have just apologized.

What happened was not criticism.

Of course it is. Someone didn't like it, so they criticized it. They gave their criticism to his boss, who then asked him to apologize.

[Karbuncle]

If he didn't want to be, he could have just apologized.

Thats the thing though, in the honor of straw man questions literally every other post, If I punched you in the face and said "Apologize to my fist for getting in the way of it, or you'll lose your job", are you going to apologize to my curled up first when you know you did nothing wrong, just because I said too or something else bad is going to happen? Or would you straight up be like "No, wtf, I did noting wrong, you're the one who is wronging me".

You dont have to answer any of that cause I know its a straw man, but what I'm saying is he should not have had to apologize to begin with just because someone took offense to an obviously satirical joke article. He did nothing wrong by all logical reasons, apologizing would be caving in to an unreasonable group of bullies. i would not have apologized either because if anything, hes the victim in this situation, and they are the bullies.

[Lyall]

Of course it is. Someone didn't like it, so they criticized it. They gave their criticism to his boss, who then asked him to apologize.

"That makes me feel threatened" isn't a criticism, it's a call for removal and silencing. Come on, now. "Threatened" is a big fucking word to throw around when dealing with assessing writing, and it's pretty damn close to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater.

[NynJa]

"That makes me feel threatened" isn't a criticism, it's a call for removal and silencing. Come on, now. "Threatened" is a big fucking word to throw around when dealing with assessing writing, and it's pretty damn close to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater.

Didnt you know? Saying you're feeling threatened is a big part of the oppression olympics.

[hey]

No one is arguing that no one should ever be fired for saying dumb things, that's just what you're taking away from this. What we're appearing to say is that satire is intentionally dumb, and being fired for it is even dumber.

...so no one should ever be fired for satire? Again, this isn't about it being satire, it's about the message within it.

Actually, I clearly said:

Okay, so to clarify you wouldn't be upset, or criticize people for demanding such a person be fired for doing exactly the same thing as mahmood did, but with a different (much worse) message? That's weird because here:

I have a question o/

Do you have any sort of basic understanding on the Freedom of Speech/Press?

Now, as a separate response not targeted at you but in a general audience using "You" as a mean for "Others", and not personal attacks(okayisthatenoughclarificationyet?) Who gives a fuck if you're offended by what he writes. He has the right to write it by the constitution, and if you don't enjoy it, and this is a big leap I know, read something else(omghax). I would get it, on a level of "At least they have a small pebble to balance their pinky toe on for this argument" instead of the regular "Idiotic feminazis raging over nothing again", if the article was a bit more serious, but it was satire.

But nah, once again, the feminazi bullies work in groups to harass someone, a gang of Feminist if you will, assaulting this man. But hey, he was asking for it because of what he was writing right?

You seem to be suggesting that anyone should be able to write anything they want and not suffer any consequences of it.

[Lyall]

...so no one should ever be fired for satire? Again, this isn't about it being satire, it's about the message within it.

You're trying very, very hard to make this a never/always situation. Stop that, it's making me feel threatened.

Edit: The message inside of it is for people to stop being so damned sensitive and combative about everything in life. The saddest part is that his call for this was met with combat and sensitive people finding where he lives and threatening him.

[Byrthnoth]

hey has gone so far towards being a caricature of a feminist that I think he's a deep cover misogynist.

[Karbuncle]

.

You seem to be suggesting that anyone should be able to write anything they want and not suffer any consequences of it.

Mostly, within the reasons and boundaries of our rights, Yes, I do. There are amendments and such to Free Speech that only covers so much. However, most of that is up for debate thanks to all the vague amendments to it and these are the things that are often abused and open for interpretation, and to each will interpret their own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech I will admit my opinions do differ when it comes to specific "rights" mentioned here, as I feel some are restricting, and open for abuse, which is not what the original right had in mind I imagine.

[hey]

Thats the thing though, in the honor of straw man questions literally every other post, If I punched you in the face and said "Apologize to my fist for getting in the way of it, or you'll lose your job", are you going to apologize to my curled up first when you know you did nothing wrong, just because I said too or something else bad is going to happen? Or would you straight up be like "No, wtf, I did noting wrong, you're the one who is wronging me".

I don't believe that is comparable to what happened here. He wasn't punched in the face for no reason. He was criticized for the article he wrote, which very much intentionally offends and criticizes people. And surprise! It offended people. So they said as such.

You dont have to answer any of that cause I know its a straw man, but what I'm saying is he should not have had to apologize to begin with just because someone took offense to an obviously satirical joke article. He did nothing wrong by all logical reasons, apologizing would be caving in to an unreasonable group of bullies. i would not have apologized either because if anything, hes the victim in this situation, and they are the bullies.

Can we stop calling it satirical as if that means it's not actually saying feminists are ridiculous. That's exactly what it is saying. It's not some kind of weird joke like "haha 2 + 2 = 5!!!!". He really was criticizing feminists. He simply did so in the form of satire.

[Lyall]

The victim complex is astounding.

[Blubbartron]

Can we stop calling it satirical as if that means it's not actually saying feminists are ridiculous. That's exactly what it is saying. It's not some kind of weird joke like "haha 2 + 2 = 5!!!!". He really was criticizing feminists. He simply did so in the form of satire.

Feminists are not immune to criticism, and a lot of the trigger warning bullshit is absolutely deserving of mockery. That doesn't mean all trigger warnings are bullshit (PTSD is an actual thing, after all), but the tumblrinas have made it a laughing stock.

[Karbuncle]

He wasn't punched in the face for no reason

I'm sorry, maybe I should say "You stepped on my toe, and then I punched you in the face", then the rest of my argument. Can we make that amendment to my discussion so its more realistic? But I feel I'd argue that yes, losing ones job over some people erroneously taking offense to a satirical article on left/right handed people is quite the punch in the face.

[hey]

You're trying very, very hard to make this a never/always situation. Stop that, it's making me feel threatened.

Yes, because others are suggesting it is, when they say things like "His rights end where her feelings begin".

If you only want to argue that being fired was too harsh of a punishment for this specific article (but would be totally fine if he said something worse) then i'll stop arguing.

hey has gone so far towards being a caricature of a feminist that I think he's a deep cover misogynist.

She.

Mostly, within the reasons and boundaries of our rights, Yes, I do. There are amendments and such to Free Speech that only covers so much. However, most of that is up for debate thanks to all the vague amendments to it and these are the things that are often abused and open for interpretation, and to each will interpret their own. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech I will admit my opinions do differ when it comes to specific "rights" mentioned here, as I feel some are restricting, and open for abuse, which is not what the original right had in mind I imagine.

No, that is totally false. The first amendment says, among other things, that the government cannot pass any laws restricting speech. It does not say anything about who has to listen to what you say, or publish it. Private citizens can forbid you from saying anything on their platform/in their house/etc. For example, the first amendment doesn't protect you from being banned from bg. The owners of bg can decide what they think is acceptable to be posted on it, and do not have to allow anything they don't want, for any or no reason. Similarly, the editor of a newspaper can decide they don't want to publish someone's article for any or no reason.

[hey]

Feminists are not immune to criticism, and a lot of the trigger warning bullshit is absolutely deserving of mockery. That doesn't mean all trigger warnings are bullshit (PTSD is an actual thing, after all), but the tumblrinas have made it a laughing stock.

Yes, i agree.

I'm sorry, maybe I should say "You stepped on my toe, and then I punched you in the face", then the rest of my argument. Can we make that amendment to my discussion so its more realistic? But I feel I'd argue that yes, losing ones job over some people erroneously taking offense to a satirical article on left/right handed people is quite the punch in the face.

But there was no punch? He wrote the article, someone complained, he was asked to apologize, he refused, he was fired. What is the punch in this analogy? He didn't lose his job just because they took offense. He lost his job because he was asked to apologize, and he refused.

[Karbuncle]

No, that is totally false. The first amendment says, among other things, that the government cannot pass any laws restricting speech. It does not say anything about who has to listen to what you say, or publish it. Private citizens can forbid you from saying anything on their platform/in their house/etc. For example, the first amendment doesn't protect you from being banned from bg. The owners of bg can decide what they think is acceptable to be posted on it, and do not have to allow anything they don't want, for any or no reason. Similarly, the editor of a newspaper can decide they don't want to publish someone's article for any or no reason.

Madam, you asked me this:

ou seem to be suggesting that anyone should be able to write anything they want and not suffer any consequences of it.

You said nothing about having it published in a major newsletter or what have you, I'm aware of the current context of discussion but I felt you were asking a broader question here. You only asked if they should be able to write it. As far as I know, you could simply make your own newsletter/print and write whatever you want within the laws.

As far as writing anything you want, Yes, I think you should be able too within the laws set forth by our country. Even then, as I said before, I disagree with some of those laws, but that's neither here nor there.

As far as it being published, I believe I said in one of my earlier posts to refer to something Blubberton mentioned, which was in regards to companies firing people for not aligning to their agenda (I.E telling the truth on Fox news), I'm paraphrasing, but what I was saying here is I'm well aware companies can fire/revoke the privilege of writing for them any time, but I still believe they have the right to write it.

Is this a Constitution lesson or a feminism thread I'm confused.

It can't be one as long as the other is present because they are in contradiction. So neither!

[wipers]

Is this a Constitution lesson or a feminism thread I'm confused.

[Lyall]

Yes, because others are suggesting it is, when they say things like "His rights end where her feelings begin".

If you only want to argue that being fired was too harsh of a punishment for this specific article (but would be totally fine if he said something worse) then i'll stop arguing.

I think this is a fair assessment of my argument. To echo what others have said, feminism (no one, really) is above being poked fun at. It's just mind-blowing that his over-the-top article critiquing how some people of a certain mindset (I really saw it as railing tumblr folks more than any one particular dichotomy that lives there) ended up drawing that EXACT sort of behavior onto himself. It would be like, to buck the belief that all people named Henry are violent, a gang of Henrys just started fucking gunning down anyone who looked them in the eyes.

I worry for you sometimes, Hey. I truly do.

[hey]

Madam, you asked me this:



You said nothing about having it published in a major newsletter or what have you. Only that if they should be able to write it. As far as I know, you could simply make your own newsletter/print and write whatever you want within the laws. Pray clarify your intent with loaded questions next time, please?

As far as writing anything you want, Yes, I think you should be able too within the laws set forth by our country.

As far as it being published, I believe I said in one of my earlier posts to refer to something Blubberton mentioned, which was in regards to companies firing people for not aligning to their agenda (I.E telling the truth on Fox news), I'm paraphrasing, but what I was saying here is I'm well aware companies can fire/revoke the privilege of writing for them any time, but I still believe they have the right to write it.



It can't be one as long as the other is present because they are in contradiction. So neither!

I also agree they have the right to write anything they want. But if they get fired as a result, their rights have not been violated.

[Karbuncle]

I also agree they have the right to write anything they want. But if they get fired as a result, their rights have not been violated.

But I would argue that they, as a person have been violated, by a gang of bullying SJWs who pressured his boss into firing him and then harassed him at his living quarters. So I ask, since these feminist/whatevers have bullied him out of his job because they were offended by his article, what of his feelings regarding being harassed? Thats okay right, cause his feelings don't matter since hes a man? That is my biggest gripe with Feminists/SJWs in general is that they're not about equality for everyone, they're about "fuck the patriarchy", and it doesn't matter who gets hurt or harmed in their mad rush of an agenda, so long as they feel the power rush of fucking someones life up over a disagreement of opinion.

They are a selfish, self serving, hateful and abusive bullying group of people who will trample anyone in their way, even fellow women, if they don't 100% agree with their mindset. This is just another blaring example of the mob mentality harassing another person, usually individuals, until their life is effected by it in an irreparable way.

Spoiler: show

yes I'm aware more than just feminists groups do this, two wrongs don't make a right etc.

Also to clarify I'm aware not all Feminists are like this, obviously, these are the ones who just get the most media coverage fucking it up for everyone.